On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:51:30AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Sunday 08 November 2015 22:57:03 Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Thiago Macieira <thi...@macieira.org> wrote: > > > > > > Can you try adding the -stdlib option in the AppleClang branch to see what > > > happens? > > > > I have an odd question. > > > > Why? > > Well, for one thing, because it would use libc++, which is maintained for > later versions of OS X, whereas GNU's libstdc++ is old and not updated by > Apple (GPLv3 controversy). > > Both libs are good in their *current* versions. But Apple stopped updating > libstdc++ 8 years ago.
Fun. Gotta love Apple. > > private: > > PluginManager(); > > - PluginManager(const PluginManager&) = delete; > > - PluginManager& operator=(const PluginManager&) = delete; > > + PluginManager(const PluginManager&){}; > > + PluginManager& operator=(const PluginManager&){}; > > }; > > To me, that improves readability, since the = delete is clear in what it > does. Actually, I have not the faintest idea what it does. > Moreover, it improves the error message in case you do accidentally try to > copy the object. And there's a silly error in the patch, that adds ; that > shouldn't be there. Which one? > Maybe a compromise is to use Q_DISABLE_COPY(PluginManager). Or get rid of plugins that I don't really see the value of... > What I'm trying to figure out is why it's a hassle in the first place. The > compiler that comes with Xcode 4.6 should be powerful enough. More > importantly, this shows there's a problem somewhere, somehow causing problems > building Qt applications and I should investigate it. > > Qt 5.6 (the Long Term Release) should work with Xcode 4.6. > > > All that said? I think I'm happy with just rejecting C++11 code and keeping > > our compilers focused on gnu99 > > Fair enough, but you won't get away with that for long :-P > > Qt 5.6 will be the last release to support building in C++98 mode. Starting > with Qt 5.7, a great deal of C++11 will be mandatory and the minimum version > of Xcode will be 5.1. I'll burn that bridge when we get there. But I have an important question in that context. Will you be required to use C++11 nonsense to USE Qt or will you be required to use a compiler that supports this nonsense to BUILD Qt? Because if Qt wants to stay somewhat compatible to its existing user base then it should be careful about staying USABLE with C++98 mode... But what this might mean is that Subsurface will try to stay on Qt 5.6 for quite a while. Given that it's the long term release that may not be entirely unreasonable either. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface